Do Iraqis Have Any Rights Under US Military Control?

[Laser Eyes]

From what I can see the US military is detaining Iraqi civilians arbitrarily and on a large scale without any kind of due process - No search warrant, no arrest warrant, no lawyer, no bail, no time limit. If the US government tried to arrest people in such a way in the USA there would be an uproar and the government would be sued for squillions. Do Iraqi citizens have any rights at all? Or can a US soldier deprive an Iraqi citizen of their liberty any time on any whim?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
From what I can see the US military is detaining Iraqi civilians arbitrarily and on a large scale without any kind of due process - No search warrant, no arrest warrant, no lawyer, no bail, no time limit. If the US government tried to arrest people in such a way in the USA there would be an uproar and the government would be sued for squillions. Do Iraqi citizens have any rights at all? Or can a US soldier deprive an Iraqi citizen of their liberty any time on any whim?

Haven't you heard? Americans have no rights either, except those which the Justice Department allows us to have. You can be held arbitrarily if you are identified as a troublemaker(read the fine print of the Patriot acts).

 

[russ_watters]

Laser Eyes, the concepts you are describing simply do not apply to a war outside our borders. This isn't a simple discussion, but the Geneva Conventions would be a good place to start for learning about the rules of armed conflict. Though implied by some in this forum, I have yet to see any specific instance where the US has violated the Geneva Convention in Iraq. Requests I have made for specific examples have been rebuffed.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

they have the right to remain silent, but they have chosen to waive that right <<rim-shot>>
No, they don't, because today in Iraq it is the law of the jungle that rules. If Bush were truly smart, in a Machiavellian sense, he'd get his punk ass over to Iraq for a long vacation. Only his presence can restore order there. I'm mad about what's happened and keeps happening there. I'm sick of all the bloodshed. What could've been (and was promoted as) a democratic revolution is obviously a failure far beyond somalia, and could turn into something as screwed up as Israel.
One fact is unarguable: more Americans die at the hands of Iraqis now than one year ago.

 

[FZ+]

We all saw pictures of Iraqi prisoners being taken on live TV didn't we? That breached the geneva convention (Article 13)

 

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
We all saw pictures of Iraqi prisoners being taken on live TV didn't we? That breached the geneva convention (Article 13)

I think it's fairly safe to say that article 13 is ambiguous enough to make that claim highly debatable.

 

[FZ+]

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Protected from public curiosity seems deeply unambiguous to me. Perhaps you might like to de-clarify this point?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Protected from public curiosity seems deeply unambiguous to me. Perhaps you might like to de-clarify this point?

A snippet from an article at "findlaws" site shows at the very least that there is debate within legal circles and that it certainly is not seen as "unambiguous".

First, consider Article 13's emphasis on the protection of prisoners from "insults and "public curiosity." In theory, the phrase "public curiosity" could be taken to refer to any display of prisoners or their images. However, read in the context of the Convention's overall concern with humane treatment, it seems more plausible to think that it was intended to refer to situations where prisoners might be exposed in person to be viewed by a group of enemy civilians or soldiers - an obviously degrading and humiliating circumstance.

It might also be taken to cover situations in which photography is intended to further the humiliation of this kind of in-person display, or in which photography is done for the purpose of expressing contempt and insult.

Thus, it may not be the photography, in itself, that is the violation, but rather the photography seen in context, once one knows its circumstances and intent.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030326_dworkin.html

 

[jb]

they also showed pictures of saddam's bloody boys on tv, who i might add look nothing like them, i don't know enough about international law to know how that fits into the geneva.

and i seem to recall bush blackmailing belgium (i think) into dismissing war crimes charges (he threatened to move nato headquarters out of that country, which is bullsh!t, also it got no attention besides a 3 sentence clip in my local newspaper)

and the iraqis have no rights, because we're bringing democracy to them.

with more people getting upset about loss of life in iraq, does anybody remember when some of us opposed it in the beginning?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

if POWs are displayed in a public forum s/a on T.V. or in print media, their identities become public knowledge therefore the families are susceptible to intimidation, torture, execution, etc. That's why we make such a big noise about it when it happens to us. Not so big a noise when its some other guy.

 

[FZ+]

But to grab another point: Russ, do you consider Iraq to be an ongoing war now, or do you consider other legislation to have taken over, such as the UN agreements on human rights, now that the war is "over"? Either case, I can provide other examples as you asked for.

 

[Tail]

I've yet to see Americans (the government of America, to be more precise...) respecting someone's rights or freedom, unless that someone is more powerful or can pay.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
But to grab another point: Russ, do you consider Iraq to be an ongoing war now, or do you consider other legislation to have taken over, such as the UN agreements on human rights, now that the war is "over"? Either case, I can provide other examples as you asked for.

Not really sure why "other legislation" wouldn't apply during war (guess it depends on the specific legislation) but in any case, I'll take any examples you can give.

 

[FZ+]

Ok, From Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 21 Part 1

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

The US has already denied that Baathist part representatives or proponents of theocratic governments be allowed as options in a future vote on the Iraqi government - hence it has denied those people representation as required by the universal declaration.

By implication, the US is also in breach of article 30.

Also, hundreds of Iraqi civilians reported to be imprisoned without charge or trial(in conditions that are reported to be very poor) without charge, including children.
eg. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1019155,00.html

This is in breach of article 10 and 11(part 1).

Specific cases also breach article 9 and 11 part 2:

[QUOTENo one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

]No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.[/QUOTE]

Ahmed Suhail, a final-year high-school student, was with his father, a well-known Baghdad vet, when they were stopped at a checkpoint on May 15. His father had a pistol (the coalition banned the carrying of weapons outside the home from June 14, but at the time it was not an offence)
...
"At no time was I questioned or interrogated, or charged. It was just punishment without trial. When the Americans first came to Baghdad I was happy, but I don't want to speak about my feelings towards them now," he says.

The granting of legal immunity to US companies also breaches articles 2 and 7.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

More later.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
The US has already denied that Baathist part representatives or proponents of theocratic governments be allowed as options in a future vote on the Iraqi government - hence it has denied those people representation as required by the universal declaration.

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Anyone except criminals of course. Like the Nazi party after WWII, the Baath party can most certainly be excluded from government. As for proponents of theocratic governments, Iraq will become a democracy. At that time, theocratic elements may very well be voted into power. Please remember that the government isn't finished being set up yet. Its tough to argue that composition of government articles even apply until then. They certainly do not apply to the interim government.

Also, hundreds of Iraqi civilians reported to be imprisoned without charge or trial.

You asked before whether there was still a war going on. To me that's a question of semantics, but the country is still (clearly) in a state of martial law and will remain so until we get the government set up. That one doesn't apply.

As far as the legal immunity to US countries goes, I still have yet to see an analysis from a credible legal source. But I'm not sure about it. I do think it is reasonable for some protection to be given to the compaines.

FZ+, you're reaching here. The violations you cited would apply if we made the current status of Iraq permanent. They most certainly do not apply to a transitional phase. The reconstruction of Germany and Japan are good examples to compare it to.

I guess now I do understand what you mean by "other legislation" - an independent, funcioning government. Clearly this does not exist. Iraq is in what I would call a transitional state between war and an independent government.

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by jb
they also showed pictures of saddam's bloody boys on tv, who i might add look nothing like them, i don't know enough about international law to know how that fits into the geneva.

Showing picture of dead bodies on TV doesn't violate any of the Geneva Conventions as the parts governing them merely make provisos for burial arrangments and contacting the families.

Whether or not showing POWs is against the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War is debatable, it's more a sign of Bush et al's hypocrisy over the standards that they think should apply to US troops vs the standards that they think should apply to foreign troops.

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by russ_watters
FZ+, you're reaching here. The violations you cited would apply if we made the current status of Iraq permanent. They most certainly do not apply to a transitional phase. The reconstruction of Germany and Japan are good examples to compare it to.

No the 4th Geneva Convention applies always when a country or countries are occupying another.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by jcsd
No the 4th Geneva Convention applies always when a country or countries are occupying another.

I wasn't referring to the Geneva convention. FZ+ cited other international law.

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I wasn't referring to the Geneva convention. FZ+ cited other international law.

Well, As you can see from FZ's post the universal declaration applies universally without exception, under humanitarian law you cannot suspend inviolable huamn rights when it suits you.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by jcsd
Well, As you can see from FZ's post the universal declaration applies universally without exception, under humanitarian law you cannot suspend inviolable huamn rights when it suits you.

This is not entirely true, it does not apply "without exception" the exception is always that if the implementation of the universal declaration threatens more basic human rights, such as security, life, hunger..etc. then the more basic human rights are upheld primarily.

I think much of FZ's complaints were taken care of in May when the United Nations Security Council gave the US and Britain authority to administer Iraq. Even more so when the interim government's legitimacy was recognized br the United Nations resolution that called for the formation of an interim administration under the American-British occupation.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

From what I've read on 'military families speak out dot org' and such, reports from Iraq are of a low-level but serious urban guerrilla war. Our great heros at the phone and power companies are having trouble getting their services running there; its just very dangerous to work there. FZ, are you really surprised that the US would flaunt the Geneva convention? After all, its just a set of principles on paper. It only has the power that the UN gives it.

 

[FZ+]

Schwarz: Not really. In fact, in cases such as showing the dead sons of Saddam, I agree with the actions the US has taken. However, I am simply correcting Russ's implication that accusations of the US breaching human rights are made up - as plainly examples show they are not. I am not making a judgement call on whether these human rights are absolute, or whether sometimes other things are more important. In some of these cases, we can find some justification of course. But then, we can also find cases where we find the US actions to be dubious even though it has not specifically breached a convention.


Russ:

Anyone except criminals of course. Like the Nazi party after WWII, the Baath party can most certainly be excluded from government.

Except, it doesn't say that. It says everyone. And those people who are loyal to Saddam are not all criminals - some are perhaps deluded etc. The pedant might note that the nazi case, including the de-nazification programme after the war, was another case in which the rights of the people were overruled - for better or worse.

I'll fetch the quote, but an US spokeperson expressed said that proponents of a religious state will not be available as options in any future election for the Iraqi government. In this case, any further government must neccessarily be in breach of their human rights.

You asked before whether there was still a war going on. To me that's a question of semantics, but the country is still (clearly) in a state of martial law and will remain so until we get the government set up. That one doesn't apply.

So, you would say that Bush is lying, and the war in Iraq is still on? Ok, let's pretend that the UD doesn't apply, and ignore your earlier statement where you agreed that these legislation should apply at all times (accidentally breaking article 30 and article 5 of the geneva convention again..). Then we go back to the geneva convention(this time relative to the treatment of civilians), which states:

Article 25: All persons in the territory of a Party to the conflict, or in a territory occupied by it, shall be enabled to give news of a strictly personal nature to members of their families, wherever they may be, and to receive news from them. This correspondence shall be forwarded speedily and without undue delay.

Did I mention the prisoners were denied contact with their families. Oops, another breach.

Article 33: No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Article 65: The penal provisions enacted by the Occupying Power shall not come into force before they have been published and brought to the knowledge of the inhabitants in their own language. The effect of these penal provisions shall not be retroactive.

Article 71: Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible.

Article 72: Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.

I did warn you... There are far more breaches in the geneva convention that in the more general laws of the universal declaration.

As far as the legal immunity to US countries goes, I still have yet to see an analysis from a credible legal source. But I'm not sure about it. I do think it is reasonable for some protection to be given to the compaines.

The question is not whether it is reasonable or not. The action itself is a serious breach of Iraq Human Rights. By law.

Kat:

This is not entirely true, it does not apply "without exception" the exception is always that if the implementation of the universal declaration threatens more basic human rights, such as security, life, hunger..etc. then the more basic human rights are upheld primarily.

The universal declaration are the basic human rights. The articles listed include the hunger, life etc rights.
The declaration expressedly forbids the active sacrifice of one right for another.

Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The UN cannot absolve the US of any of these articles, becauyse in doing so, it would be breaking article 30 itself. The government issues do not refer to the current government, but the guidelines issued for the formation of the future "democratic" administration in Iraq.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Kat:

The universal declaration are the basic human rights. The articles listed include the hunger, life etc rights.
The declaration expressedly forbids the active sacrifice of one right for another.

You'd have to show me where the declaration forbids sacrafice of one right over the other. As for Article 30 it is very explicit (as it should be) in that it applies to "any act aimed at the destruction" This section does NOT cover implementation of rights that were not previously being implemented.

The UN cannot absolve the US of any of these articles, becauyse in doing so, it would be breaking article 30 itself. The government issues do not refer to the current government, but the guidelines issued for the formation of the future "democratic" administration in Iraq.

You are mistaken, The Universal Declaration provides for the United Nations authority in Article 29 Section 3

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

The basic human rights of basic health needs, relief from hunger, security etc. ARE ALWAYS the primary focus when implementing The Universal Declaration, implemented prior to all others.

 

[FZ+]

You'd have to show me where the declaration forbids sacrafice of one right over the other. As for Article 30 it is very explicit (as it should be) in that it applies to "any act aimed at the destruction" This section does NOT cover implementation of rights that were not previously being implemented.

Where does it set down an order of precedence for each right?

In that case, the US has already broken article 30 by the invasion of Iraq, in which it generated a poor standard of living, where according to you the actions of Saddam's regime were so far down the list of rights.

The basic human rights of basic health needs, relief from hunger, security etc. ARE ALWAYS the primary focus when implementing The Universal Declaration, implemented prior to all others.

Please list the article where it says that.

One might not that the standard of living etc is article 25, while representation in government is article number 21.

You are mistaken, The Universal Declaration provides for the United Nations authority in Article 29 Section 3

This section is also very explicit (as it should be). This means that the measures taken by the US to establish any of these rights require the agreement of the UN general assembly or security council. As that vote did not take place, the US occupation is inherently in breach of this article. The US remains in breach as that article, if we accept your interpretation of the following one, refers only to the implementation of new rights, not legitimising the destruction of previous ones. (Though we may note in passing article 28, which still places the duty firmly on the US to form a representative government, no matter if it was in place before, or not.)

 

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Where does it set down an order of precedence for each right?

It gives no guidelines on implementation whatsoever, this does not mean you assume that they must all be implemented simultaniously.

In that case, the US has already broken article 30 by the invasion of Iraq, in which it generated a poor standard of living, where according to you the actions of Saddam's regime were so far down the list of rights.

I think, if you research, you will find that you cannot "break" declarations. Declarations are not binding. However, International covenants and conventions have the force of law for the countries that ratify them.

Please list the article where it says that.

In practice, this is the way it is and has been practiced by both the U.N. and NATO. The declaration does not cover the steps to implementation nor does it cover responsibility.

This section is also very explicit (as it should be). This means that the measures taken by the US to establish any of these rights require the agreement of the UN general assembly or security council. As that vote did not take place, the US occupation is inherently in breach of this article. The US remains in breach as that article, if we accept your interpretation of the following one, refers only to the implementation of new rights, not legitimising the destruction of previous ones. (Though we may note in passing article 28, which still places the duty firmly on the US to form a representative government, no matter if it was in place before, or not.)

Again, a declaration is not binding and cannot be "breached". If it were the entire middle east would be in breach.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Except, it doesn't say that. It says everyone.

So you're willing to accept the obviously absurd implications of "everyone"? Children? Criminals (in ANY country)? Etc. Don't be rediculous.

I'll fetch the quote, but an US spokeperson expressed said that proponents of a religious state will not be available as options in any future election for the Iraqi government. In this case, any further government must neccessarily be in breach of their human rights.

I'm sure whatever Constitution they get will include the ability to amend it.

So, you would say that Bush is lying, and the war in Iraq is still on?

Lol. Do I even need to respond to that? You're really being rediculous.

Did I mention the prisoners were denied contact with their families. Oops, another breach.

That one I'll give you. I've always considered that one to be pretty absurd. A right to send and receive mail? Please. I don't know that anyone ever follows that one.

I did warn you... There are far more breaches in the geneva convention that in the more general laws of the universal declaration.

Are you going to provide actual examples or just list numbers? I certainly don't know enough about the structure of our occupation to prove those 4 one way or another and I'd wager you don't either.

The question is not whether it is reasonable or not. The action itself is a serious breach of Iraq Human Rights. By law.

Where does it say that?

The declaration expressedly forbids the active sacrifice of one right for another.

[?] [?] Thats THE fundamental question in the theory of "rights" and the basis for all limits on rights. For example, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater isn't protected free speech because it infringes on the rights of the other people in the theater.

The government issues do not refer to the current government, but the guidelines issued for the formation of the future "democratic" administration in Iraq.

[?] [?] So after listing them you concede they don't apply?

In that case, the US has already broken article 30 by the invasion of Iraq, in which it generated a poor standard of living, where according to you the actions of Saddam's regime were so far down the list of rights.

Lol, are you saying you think the standard of living is WORSE now than when Saddam was in power? Do you have any idea how many people died as a direct result of his regime? Its staggering. Its enough that even during the active part of the war, Iraqi civilians were dying at a slower rate than before the war started - Saddam had to divert his energy away from killing his own people.

Again, FZ+, you're really reaching here. I was hoping for something more clear cut, like evidence of abusing POW's or intentionally targeting civilians, etc. If splitting hairs on the implimentation of the government is the best you can do for finding violations, I'd say we're doing an extrordinarily good job at protecting the rights of the Iraqi people.

 

[Laser Eyes]

I've yet to see Americans (the government of America, to be more precise...) respecting someone's rights or freedom, unless that someone is more powerful or can pay.

Or they happen to have a desired UN Security Council vote.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

impressive. The US would do better at the goal of "rebuilding" if it would follow the codes set down for such endeavors. But as RW shows, suggested violations are subject to rigorous scrutiny.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
But as RW shows, suggested violations are subject to rigorous scrutiny.

As well they should be. There was a recent treaty, something about the World Court I think that the US did not ratify for fear of frivolous attempts at litigation. Given the culture of litigation in the US, its reasonable to want to be protected from that. And given that the US is the big kid on the block, everyone is going to take shots at us whenever they can.

But beyond that: Innocent until proven guilty. Accusations made on message boards are nothing. No one has yet even alleged such violations in an international forum, much less attempted to take action. To me that's pretty telling.

 

[FZ+]

So you're willing to accept the obviously absurd implications of "everyone"? Children? Criminals (in ANY country)? Etc. Don't be rediculous.

It's the wording of the law. Everyone. Appeal to the UN if you disagree. Of course, in most major systems, children are counted as represented as their children. However, it is wholy incorrect to say that all those who were loyal to Saddam were criminals. At least, unless we are talking about political criminals, which would happen to be another breach.

I'm sure whatever Constitution they get will include the ability to amend it.

Not if the US has already selected the possibilities of government that would draw it up.

That one I'll give you. I've always considered that one to be pretty absurd. A right to send and receive mail? Please. I don't know that anyone ever follows that one.

In US prisons, you get your phone call. This is an essential safeguard to ensure the prisoners are not abused. Without such contact, we cannot in fact know if the conditions are adequate or not, though suggestions from past prisoners say they are. (also a breach)

Are you going to provide actual examples or just list numbers? I certainly don't know enough about the structure of our occupation to prove those 4 one way or another and I'd wager you don't either.

How much?

The effect of these penal provisions shall not be retroactive.

Ahmed Suhail, a final-year high-school student, was with his father, a well-known Baghdad vet, when they were stopped at a checkpoint on May 15. His father had a pistol (the coalition banned the carrying of weapons outside the home from June 14, but at the time it was not an offence)

I can give examples for the others as well. I just thought I can assume you have actually read my previous posts, where I supplied a link to these accounts.

Pay up!

Where does it say that?

Articles 2 and 7 of the universal declaration of human rights. Do read it please.

Thats THE fundamental question in the theory of "rights" and the basis for all limits on rights. For example, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater isn't protected free speech because it infringes on the rights of the other people in the theater.

Allowances for this case is given in the Universal Declaration. Allowances for the refusal of trials, representative governments etc are not given. And the carrying out of these do not infringe the rights of others in any meaningful way.

So after listing them you concede they don't apply?

No. I am saying you missed the point. I was not talking about the transition stage you referred to. I was talking about the goals and specifications for the final "independent" government the US set out. YOUR objections don't apply.

Do you have any idea how many people died as a direct result of his regime?

Do you? Without quoting data from 10 years ago, during which it was effectively a guerilla civil war? Or previously, during another war?

As some cynics note, at least Saddam kept security, and electricity/water going. Perhaps the current situation will improve. But on the criteria kat set out, this is still a breach from the moment the services were taken out.

I was hoping for something more clear cut, like evidence of abusing POW's or intentionally targeting civilians, etc.

How ironic. You know that the least clear cut things would be such accounts of abusing POWs etc, clouded by emotion and based on eyewitness accounts. In fact, I specifically decided to show you the thin end of the wedge - the claims that are indisputable by confirmation with a variety of sources. If you want the more sensationalist data I avoided, any googlisation would do.

Funny though that we have all remembered innocent until proven guilty just now...